“Olympic Mann”

There has been much publicity about Michael Mann’s claims to have been awarded a share of the Nobel Peace Prize. Somewhat overlooked in the excitement about “Nobel” Mann were the accomplishments of “Olympic Mann” at multiple Olympics, celebrated in Josh’s cartoon at left showing “Olympic Mann” in an iconic pose.

In Mann’s lawsuit against National Review, Mann accused them of defamation of a “Nobel peace recipient”. National Review recently honored Mann’s “award” of a Nobel Peace Prize with a full page ad in the Penn State student newspaper (h/t WUWT here.)

With no sacrifice in accuracy, Mann could additionally have accused National Review of defaming an “Olympic gold medalist.”

As a PSU alum and friend of an PSU Olympian denied a chance to compete at the Moscow Olympics by another Global Warming Alarmist, I especially relish the opportunity to see Mr. Mann’s Olympic Pose. snip (The full page ad was great BTW!)

The issue for understanding Mann, climate science, and so called “inquiries” is not the Sandusky case per se but what can be understood about the leadership and administration of Penn State in recent years (not to mention UEA, other scientific and university bodies, etc.). If ex-Pres. Spanier would behave this way over the Sandusky case, how can anyone be confident he (and colleagues) were better in relation to the Mann inquiries etc.

This certainly bears on Mann’s lawsuit–the coverup at Penn was enough to get the president not only fired but (possibly) indicted. So the implication that Penn’s investigation of Mann was probably inadequate can hardly be viewed as unreasonable.

good point, I would think that any such prosecution of ex-Pres. Spanier would lend support to the argument that it is reasonable to question whether other inquiries and proceedings at Penn State have been adequate.

p.s. I’m not affiliated with either but “Penn State” is the Pennsylvania State University in State College, PA (with branch campuses) while “Penn” typically refers to the very separate and different University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. So the institution of Spanier, Mann, et al is “Penn State” not “Penn”…. (whether Spanier may end up in the “State Pen” is a different question which I cannot address…. depends upon legal proceedings and possible plea bargaining etc.).

Long before anyone outside Penn State had heard of Spanier, I sharply criticized him at Climate AUdit here http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/ for making the following fabricated claim about the Mann Inquiry Committee to the Penn State Board of Trustees:

I know they’ve taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides,” Spanier said.

Perhaps now the Penn State Collegian (student newspaper) and PSU Board of Trustees can be pressed to re-examine Graham Spanier’s credibility when it came to the fatuous pretense that the Mann panel did any thorough or comprehensive job:

Just so; I’ve been telling friends & family for months since the Sandusky affair exploded that a University administration that turns a blind eye for 15 years on child molestation is not likely to truly investigate a relatively minor case of academic impropriety.

Of course it could be argued that, shocking & sickening as the Sandusky scandal is, the Mannian epoch taken in its entirety, including Climategate, is vastly more significant. A relatively small cabal of scientists and politicians almost managed to stampede the entire industrialized world into economic suicide.

There appears to be a remarkable tendency for the great and the good in the anglosphere to ignore child molestation to keep their stars. The BBC in the UK have gotten themselves into a bit of trouble over a “star” presenter and disc jockey, Jimmy Saville, who had been molesting young girls for forty or more years. They have launched two in depth enquiries unfortunately Sandusky, Russell and Oxburgh weren’t available, but there are plenty of the great and the good who will do a stirling job in exonerating the BBC from all blame.

Spanier was not fired, he was simply removed from the president’s role. Now that a felony indictment has been handed down, the University has seen fit to really put the hammer down on the guy — they placed him on paid leave of absence. I imagine that if he is convicted, they might go nuclear and cancel his privileges to the faulty lounge.

…they might go nuclear and cancel his privileges to the faculty lounge.

Very funny!
About Spanier…there was the 1998 incident. Let’s say you do nothing because the local prosecutor drops the ball, so you give Sandusky the benefit of the doubt. But then in 2002 Mike McCreary reports what he saw. McCreary is impeccable. He was born in State College, played for State College High, QB’d at Penn State, then coached there. He’s more PSU than Paterno, and has absolutely no reason to make up a story that would harm the team. So you believe McCreary, and decide to do the wrong thing and not report to the police in order to save PSU’s reputation. Given all of that…how do you not anyway get rid of Sandusky thereafter? Take away his keys? Restrict his accesses? Not only did Spanier do the wrong thing about McCreary’s report, he is morally and financially incompetent to the institution he served by not doing something about Sandusky.

That document is a presentment which authorizes the Attorney General to file charges. Spanier will not be formally under indictment until the AG’s office files information with the Court of Common Pleas in a few months.

Thanks for the recommendation Skiphill. I’m the author of the blog in question. I follow ClimateAudit but post comments mostly at WUWT, where I’ve also done two guest posts.

There will be more on Mann and in particular his latest defamation case. The political aspects of the climate debate will be a focus of the blog, especially freedom of speech issues.

I’m new to blogging and am experiencing some technical difficulties. Replies to comments (nested) were disappearing. When I followed the referral link here no comments were visible in Firefox. But I can see them in Chrome. I suspect it may be an issue with the comment plug-in CA Assistant. Anybody here experienced anything similar?

“Defamed Nobel peace recipient” packs more of a punch in the media than ‘defamed scientist having questionable science assessments’. “Pulitzer winning journalist who exposes scientists corrupted by industry money” is far more catchy than ‘retired editor working with enviro-activist group uses paper-thin guilt-by-association accusation in claim that climate skeptic are untrustworthy’.

Embellished resumes are not likely a casual mistake here, when the goal is to hook the public into trusting the entire narrative of AGW without question. When that trust evaporates, the issue instead looks like a ponzi scheme that’s been kept alive with embellished ‘science’ and non-stop efforts to manufacture doubt about its critics.

1:51PM EDT November 1. 2012 – Former Penn State president Graham Spanier and two other former administrators were charged Thursday with perjury, obstruction of justice, and endangering children in connection with their handling of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal.

Prosecutors said all three officials knew of complaints involving Sandusky, an assistant football coach, showering with boys in 1998 and 2001 and failed to take action to stop it.

“This is about three powerful and influential men, three men who used their positions at Penn State to cover-up and conceal the activities of (Sandusky),” said Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly in announcing the charges….

…..

….Penn State spokesman David La Torre said Thursday that Spanier, who continued to serve as a tenured professor after he was fired as president in November, “will be placed on leave, effective immediately.”

and my favourite:
Al Capone’s Vault
(Probably most apropos because of what Geraldo had to say after the failure as quoted at wikipedia: “”My career was not over, I knew, but had just begun. And all because of a silly, high-concept stunt that failed to deliver on its titillating promise.” The term “Al Capone’s vault” has become slang for a heavily hyped event with disappointing results.)

“An individual’s behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as deviant. Much of an individual’s behavior can be viewed as a response to this “labeling.” Mate swapping, then, can be viewed as either deviant or normal behavior, depending on who is viewing it and from what perspective it is being viewed.”

Maybe “collusion” is a useful “labeling” kind of word to refer to activities which communicate and coordinate about a cover-up, as we’ve seen in Climategate emails, the various grossly defective inquiries etc. Sure, from one perspective )that of complacent bureaucrats) it is merely “normal behavior” and not “deviant” at all….

Part of the case against Spanier et al. hinges on allegations that they did not turn over all information that was subpoenaed (Schultz apparently removed documents to his house) and that they failed to search computer data bases for e-mails. It also appears that Penn State’s lawyer Cynthia Baldwin may be one of the prosecution’s key witnesses.

Searching databases for emails seems to be beyond the skill set of certain universities. So hard! Surely there must be some organization somewhere that has staff with advanced computing skills…oh, wait…

Searching large volumes of documents (including Emails) for specific details is a standard part of discovery in lawsuits. There are commercial firms that do this for lawyers. Even tricks to defeat analysis, such as supplying the documents in unsearchable images, are dealt with routinely.

Over at Bishop Hill Don Keillor recently posted the saga of his FOI request to get a single email from UEA. He knew the date, the sender, and the recipient. They swore they couldn’t find it, after spending thousands of pounds on a ‘consultant’ to search for it. He appealed to the FOI body (forget their name just now) and they knocked him back. This had gone on for many months.

Finally, he threatened them with a judicial review, and hey presto! the email appeared. Just like that.

If there was ever any doubt as to Mann being a moron, his decision to take Steyn on in a PR battle should settle the matter. Steyn brings a rapier wit, broad learning, ability to turn a phrase. Mann? Well, “scurrilous”, “shill”, “fossil-fuel…” only gets you so far.

Where is Michael Mann Today? He is at the GSA meeting in Boulder, Colo. (see WUWT for details). There he is cranking the propaganda mill about tropical storm cum hurricane Sandy. It has been one week since Sandy- pretty efficient operation to get this all together on such short notice. Hopefully someone will monitor Mr. “Have Prize Will Travel” to see how many shots he puts into the barn’s weather-boards and how much smoke he generates in trying.

This may be old news, but at least I could not easily locate this anywhere.

After learning (ironically from Eli) that Monckton had claimed to be a Nobel prize winner for the same IPCC work as Mann (which apparently is very old news in certain circles), I decided to check what Mann’s latest (“The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines”) had to say about it. There it was in Chapter 5 under subtitle “Pros and Amateurs” (my bold):

Christopher Monckton, the third viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has emerged on the denial scene in recent years. He claims to be an expert on climate change, though he has no formal scientific training. Richard Littlemore of the fossil fuel industry watchdog group DeSmogBlog tells us that Monckton has been caught on several occasions “indulging in deliberate manipulation of scientific data to arrive at misleading conclusions about climate science.”57 Monckton’s assertions aren’t confined to science; he has even claimed, falsely, to have won the Nobel Prize.58

Footnote 58:

In an open letter from Christopher Monckton to Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Monckton states in his biographical sketch that “his contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 … earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate” (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/Letter_to_McCain.pdf, accessed August 11, 2011). As Littlemore notes in “Pompous Prat Alert!” ibid., “Monckton claimed to also be a Nobel winner because he had done such good work trying to undermine their effort. He even got a friend to melt down an old science experiment so they could fashion a little Nobel Prize pin, later presented to Monckton in a highly unofficial ceremony. (For the record, Monckton claims he deserves the accolade because he was a ‘reviewer’ of the IPCC report. The IPCC accepts reviews, unsolicited, from all parties …).”

So does this mean (legally) that Mann deliberately used the false claim knowing that he had no right to use it?

The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: “X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.”

I remember Mann recently responding to a vaguely critical poster on his FB page defending his stance pointing at this article on Steve Running.

Running, as one of the key members of the intergovernmental panel, shares in that award, making him Missoula’s first Nobel laureate since UM professor Harold Urey received the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1934 for his discovery of heavy hydrogen.

I found it astonishing enough that anyone could make that equivalence of a single man hard science Nobel winner to a “contributor” to a far more arbitrary and political peace prize but put that down to hokey local journalism and read on to the Q&A…

Independent: As someone who has spent a major portion of his professional career researching climate change and advocating for societal change, what does winning a share of the Nobel Peace Prize mean for you personally?

Running: There was of course a fair bit of buzz that Al Gore might get it. We were really just rooting for Al Gore to get it. That’s why we were all completely stunned Friday when the news started coming up that Al Gore and the IPCC committee had won the prize.

It didn’t sink in for us as individual authors until around 9 a.m. when I got an e-mail from the IPCC head office in Geneva, Switzerland saying, and I quote, “This makes each of you a Nobel laureate.” And that’s when I started going, “Whoa. Wait a minute here.”

Indy: What did it feel like to read those words from the IPCC office?

Running: Well, because this is a shared prize among 600 of us, I’ve kind of continued to oscillate back and forth between a thought that this is all almost kind of a funny game on the one hand, and on the other hand thinking quite profoundly that this is… I read in the last day or two that the Nobel Peace Prize is considered the biggest prize on earth about anything. You start thinking about that and start thinking even one six-hundredth of the biggest prize on earth is just…well, you’re left really speechless. It’s hard to have that sink in.

My emphasis there. So maybe Mann and a few others really thought they had Laureate status because “head office” told them? Or maybe they read the same e-mail that the another IPCC contributer Lenny Bernstein got and made a mistake?

Eventually, the Chairman of the IPCC sent an e-mail to all of us who had worked on the reports, explaining that we really couldn’t claim that we had won the Nobel Prize, only that we had contributed to the IPCC’s winning the prize.

Lenny Bernstein sounds eminently normal and sensible, but some of the others come across rather silly and childish I mean, “biggest prize on earth about anything” ?? :)

Eventually, the Chairman of the IPCC sent an e-mail to all of us who had worked on the reports, explaining that we really couldn’t claim that we had won the Nobel Prize, only that we had contributed to the IPCC’s winning the prize.

It would be useful to have that email. It would show that Mann knew he was not entitled to call himself a Nobel Prize winner, yet continued to do so in grant applications and legal filings.

In an open letter from Christopher Monckton to Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Monckton states in his biographical sketch that “his contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 … earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate”

The quoted phrase does not appear in Monckton’s open letter. It appears in an SPPI introduction to the letter, written by “who-knows-who?”. The letter itself was reprinted from American Thinker.

Another interesting observation re Mann’s Olympian leaps of self-adulation, which no doubt “contributed” to his Nobel delusions, is that he was not a “key” IPCC player in AR4. His role in AR4, (AFAIK) was limited to that of “Expert Reviewer” for Chapters 3, 6, 9 & 10 of WG1. Seems that Mann was resting on his earlier “laurels” in order to stretch his claim to Nobel fame.

One of his Review comments (6-1075), I found to be amusingly telling:

The authors of this chapter should request an explanation from the lead authors of the SPM of why there is not a single graphic from the chapter shown in the SPM. Every other major section of the SPM has at least one supporting graphic. The lack of a supporting graphic in the A Paleoclimate Perspective section is effectively a slap in the face to chapter 6 authors. It also sends a disturbing message that AR4 is somehow backing away from paleoclimate-based claims made in the TAR where the results from paleoclimate studies were highlighted. Yet, a reading of chapter 6 shows no such thing, and in fact reveals more robust evidence in support of the key conclusions.[…]

For the record, the “chapter team” response to the above comment: “Noted”.

Hi Steve
I don’t know if you missed it, but there was quite a big storm recently called Sandy. A lot of people are seeing it as a manifestation of AGW. Why aren’t you blogging about it?
Steve: I’m working on a post. While many people are prepared to comment without examining the data, I prefer to look at data before commenting. And unfortunately this takes time. I’ve also had other obligations this week.

Mr. McIntyre, while it seems most appropriate to call The Great Mann to task for his claims, perhaps you should be more hesitant where David Karoly is concerned. After all, he won the 2007 Nobel Prize with Al Gore. From that unimpeachable source, Wikipedia:

“Karoly has served as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 2 (awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with Al Gore) and is a member of the faculty of the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.[2] He is member of the board of the Climate Change Authority.[3]”

It is possible, perhaps likely,that the claim of “Nobel Prize Winner” was a construct by Mike Mann’s lawyer, who would be unsophisticated in these matters. Still Mann should have reviewed/corrected it before issuing. As it is, it provided for much merriment in the blogs but does not bear on the question of liability.

The list of methods that Lomborg may have applied to obtain what he wants, is long and varied. An attempt to list them has given the following result:

1) The first thing you do, before you make a manipulation, is to accuse your opponent of making just that type of manipulation (this is evident e.g. in chapter 1 of The Skeptical Environmentalist). In this way, you prevent that the public will listen to the accusations that your opponent may come up with.

2) Ally yourself with people in key positions. Thus, Lomborg has very successfully allied himself with editors of large newspapers in Denmark and abroad, with the editor at Cambridge University Press, and, last but not least, with the man who was to become the Danish prime minister.

3) It is important that you prevent people from listening to your critics. Therefore, you must make some sort of character assassination of the people that criticize you or are likely to criticize you in the future. You may cast suspicion on their motives, or attack their integrity. If the most serious criticism will come from the most prominent scientists, then slate and taunt especially these. Sooner or later, any scientist that receives this treatment, will retreat from the scene, and so those that are left, are no longer the greatest authorities.

4) A supplementary strategy is to insult your critics. Preferably, the insult should be so subtle that the general public will not detect it. In this way, you make your critic react emotionally or even lose his temper, and – which is the clue – without any reason that is apparent to the public. There is little that is so ridiculous as a scientist who has become emotional. This will immediately rob him of his scientific authority. As an example, a Danish newspaper helped Lomborg on this point when they brought a whole-page article with the headline: “When scientists become aggressive.”

5) Criticize or attack an expert from whom you might expect criticism. When the criticism comes, you can blunt the teeth that bite you by claiming that the critic has been slated by you already, so he is not a neutral person relative to you. Thus, in Lomborg´s response to Scientific American, he writes (p. 3): “Notice that these four experts have certainly not been chosen randomly – two of the four reviewers are actually directly criticized in my book.”
6) Focus on those opponents that are most emotional or subjective. For instance, you can talk very much of what is said by people in WWF, Greenpeace and similar organizations which are not neutral vis-a-vis environmental issues, and then just mention briefly that the scientists say approximately the same. Or give much room to uninformed people who write reader´s letters on the basis of their gut feelings. Then, you can postulate that you do indeed let the critics come with their arguments, at the same time as you reject many well argued letters from informed experts.

7) Method 6 requires that you are able to arrange the debate, e.g. by determining what type of interviews and meetings you participate in, or by coordination with the editor of a newspaper. Actually, Lomborg has been able to govern the debate to some extent, because editors have indeed cooperated.

8) Be imprudent. Newspapers do not like letters that are neutral and balanced. They want letters that reveal the dirty motives of your opponents.

9) When you raise doubt about your opponent´s motives, prevent him from replying in defence. For instance, in a TV debate, you can start your remark with this comment to your opponent: “It seems to me that there are some figures here which you do not want out in the open”, and then go on with a lot of other details, so that the opponent will not reply to the first sentence. Or you can slate your opponent in your book, with little opportunity for him to reply, because where should he put his reply ? Or you can phone the person and afterwards claim that he said this-and-this. There is no tape-recording of your talk, so nobody can check it. This, of course, requires that you protest vigorously against the claims made afterwards by the person whom you phoned.

10) Give the impression of being a victim of persecution. Be the innocent, brave young man who is subject to unjust persecution from a clergy of cynical environmentalists. Or present yourself as a kind of Galilei, and your opponents as a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

11) Never give any credit to your opponents. If they, through a massive or concentrated effort, have managed to remedy an environmental problem, then downplay the importance of this and postulate that the improvement would have come by itself anyway.

12) Create confusion. You do not need to win a debate; it suffices if you create confusion as to who is right and who is wrong. If at a start there is general agreement on an issue, and you then challenge this with an opposite assertion, then you may very well create the impression that “the doctors disagree”. And, as long as the doctors disagree, no lay man dares to draw his own conclusion. If you can prolong the duration of the disagreement ad infinitum, you will permanently have brought people away from what was until then the general consensus.

13) Try to present yourself as very scientific, and your opponent as one who has not completely check on the facts. Lomborg does that in several ways, e.g. by the very large number of notes and references. One general strategy is that figures that are defended by Lomborg are presented with many digits, to signal great precision and hence reliability, whereas the figures defended by the opponents are presented as very unprecise – and hence unreliable – estimates. As an example of Lomborg´s absurd precision, in note 767 in TSE he writes that the total forest cover on the globe in 1961 was 4.3750869e9 ha. The expression with an “e” also makes the figure very technical, i.e. trustworthy.

14) Focus on fields and parameters where there is great uncertainty, and where the scientific community has come up with a wide range of estimates. Then, pick out a value at one extreme end of the spectrum, and postulate that this is the true value, and criticize all those that advance other estimates which “obviously” are not the truth. That is, postulate that the most reliable estimate is that which lies furthest in the direction that you want.
15) Utilise that journalists do not generally understand scientific uncertainty. If a journalist asks a scientist what is the true value of a certain parameter, then the scientist will normally say that we do not know the true value – we can only pin down a range of possible values, or indicate an average and a standard deviation. The journalist will be disappointed by this vagueness and see the scientist as a person who is not well updated. In this situation, Lomborg will strike a convincing attitude and offer a very precies figure, from which the journalist will understand that here is a guy who really has a grip of the facts. In this way, Lomborg wins by a far margin over scientists in the public media.

16) State the main trend very briefly, and then use the main part of the text or the time to deal with that particular opposite trend which you want to stress. This will affect the audience unconsciously – they will remember what was said most of the time, and forget the caveat at the start. But if you are criticized for painting a biased picture, you can always point out that you said the right thing in the beginning. An example of this method is described here in Lomborg-errors. In this way you can both technically say what is correct, and at the same time effectively communicate the opposite message that you want to send.
17) Do not always consider whether trends are significant. If the trend supports you, claim that the trend is there, no matter whether it is significant. If it does not support you, claim that it is not singificant, even if it is.

18) Cite figures selectively. Present those figures that support your point, and omit the others.

19) Figures may be presented as large or small, depending on what you want. You may for instance give the figure as percentage of something very big (e.g. area in percent of the total area of the globe), or you may make a change appear relatively large. For instance, values of 7 and 9 appear relatively similar, but if you speak of deviations of +1 and -1 from the average, they appear much more different.

20) Graphs may be manipulated, as long as it is done sufficiently subtly. For instance, there are several cases in The Skeptical Environmentalist where two curves are compared, but where it is concealed that they have not been adjusted to the same reference level or start value.

21) Quote text selectively. If you read large amounts of text, it will always be possible to find a sentence which can be taken out of its context and be used to prove something, e.g. that the experts agree with you, or that your opponents are not trustworthy.

22) In order to carry out method 19, get help from assistants. On some universities in USA, there are – allegedly – professors who pay students for scanning large volumes of text in order to find just those few sentences that may underpin a predefined assertion. As to Lomborg, he has had his students to scan large amounts of text, whereby it was possible for him to overview the “true state” of the whole world within just one half year.

23) Make sure that it will be time-consuming and tedious to detect your flaws. Do not make obvious flaws that can be detected easily. Manipulate mainly be saying something other than what is in the reference that you cite, or pick a single unrepresentative sentence out of a large amount of text.. Then it will be necessary for your opponents to do the tedious job of checking a lot of your 1,700 references and reading large amounts of text. And better still, include references that it is difficult or impossible to procure. If an error is uncovered, do not admit it – the public does not have access to the original reference anyhow.

24) Make a text that is vague, indirect, inconsistent and confusing. If you make incongruent statements, you can resist any criticism by bringing quotes to document that you actually said the opposite of what you are criticized for saying.

25) As far as possible, write the conclusions between the lines, not on the lines. Present the premises in such a way that the implications “hang in the air”. It is then up to the reader to draw the conclusions. In this way, counter attacks are made difficult, because things are not expressed directly.

26) Do not just write about what is correct and incorrect, but draw a number of persons into the text. With subtle shifts in the tone of the text, it is possible to imply what persons are shady, and what persons are sensible. It is then possible to make every chapter become a small drama where the good and the bad guys are in conflict. The readers can relate to such conflicts between persons, whereas purely technical or theoretical stuff is boring.

27) Like every magician, distract the attention of the audience from the point where the trick is made. For instance, when discussing deforestation, Lomborg distorts the data material to get the result that the total forest area is growing. He may hope to distract attention from this distortion by making people focus on the irrelevance of counting Siberian taiga as a substitute for disappearing rain forests. Or when he presents data on the number of starving people in Africa, he may distract attention from the real issue by evoking a discussion on the use of relative vs. absolute figures. See also this example from an interview with the Danish climate minister.
28) If something is a cause of a negative trend, and you want to downplay this connection, then find something else that also influences the trend, preferably something not connected with environmental issues.

29) If you want to disprove a negative trend, then do not just say that there is no trend. Try to stress your point by claiming that the trend goes just in the opposite direction, even if does not significantly do so.

30) Use those definitions that are most suitable for your purpose. For instance, the effect of pollution is strongest close to the source. Then say that the effects seen there is not due to the type of pollution that you talk of, and when you then discuss the type of pollution that you talk of, at large distances from the source, then say that the effects are not the type that you are talking of (example: the chapter in TSE on acid precipitation). In this way, by juggling with definitions, you can prove that the effects seen are not due to the pollution in question.

31) Forget about papers and articles that disprove your point. If this is apparent already from the title, then don´t read them. If you happen to read them, don´t cite them. Unless, of course, they deviate so greatly from your own truth that you can use them to demonstrate how wrong your opponents are.

32) Of course, in general, when you want to prove a point, you may use all types of arguments that support you, and forget all kinds of arguments that do not support you. The art is only to do it discretely. It is most easy in fields with great uncertainty, where there are so diverging estimates that you can usually find at least one that fits you. Therefore, in such fields, it is possible to prove practically anything you want.

thanks harold
for a minute thought Mosh had lost his marbles or pool cleaning fluid fumes had got to his brain.
wonder how may other ’cause’ crib sheets are out there ? good thing/bad thing, who knows but activists.

I have been thinking about lomborg as I press on some of these adaptation issues.. lo and behold I find gleick doing some nasty, I find people investigating him for misconduct, all sorts of interesting things.

you know the way the story is told now, youd think mann was the first person ever picked on in these wars.. very interesting history here.

It’s a tangent. As one travels through various arguments made in the mann affair, one always runs over these claims that Mann is being mistreated, that he is being singled out. That going after scientists for misconduct is somehow beyond the pale.

So, I think it is instructive to remind people that Lomborg was attacked long ago. Brought up on charges.. etc. Which led me to wonder what horrible stuff had he done in his books. So I found his critic.. And lo and behold he criticizes lomborg for some of the very things we criticize mann. I suppose in due course i could wrap this up into a nice little piece of comparing..

you also see these attacks on Steve for his persistence in bringing mann’s misdeeds to light. I think if folks have given lomborgs critics leeway to persue his target that a turnabout is fair play.

in reality i was too lazy to walk over to my other computer and mail this to mac so I posted it here.

Mosh —
An interesting comparison, but deserves a separate post. Also, please give some context. Not everyone even knows who Lomborg is. (I had heard of him but the name didn’t ring a bell when you posted.)

yes, I think that site is claiming that Lomborg relies upon all of the items in that list of nefarious propaganda techniques. I haven’t followed L’Affair Lomborg at all closely but that characterization does not seem fair to Lomborg from what I have seen. The list does seem more apropos of Michael Mann though…..

The passage Tom Fuller quotes from The Economist summarises the reality of the situation for me. My “Was that it?” referred to the intended meaning of Mosher. A useful indoor sport as the days draw in.

I am granting for the purpose of illustration that all the charges are correct and that the methods as listed are correct.

Then, I am suggesting that the list be applied to mann.

I am granting that Fogs tenacious focus on Lomborg is justified, and claiming the same right for mcintyre.

Finally, I am using the Lomborg affair to call into question the notion that investigating mann for misconduct is not unique in this battle. Simply, the tactics were laid out first in the attack on Lomborg and this is a matter of goose and gander.

The term sacrifice throw from Judo might explain some of this, but not all

I’ve never set foot in a university, and yet I can see through this. Mosher is operating from a rulebook called “Alinsky’s rules for radicals”, and is using Rule 3 against readers here (go outside your (the reader’s) area of expertise), and rule 12 against Lomborg (“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”).

The appearance of Gleick’s “review” in this anti-Lomborg file, makes one wonder if he had read any more of Lomberg’s book before writing this “review” than he did of Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager … before writing that notorious “review”.

And O/T … but speaking of Gleick and misconduct inquiries … there’s a fascinating post from March, 2011, in which Gleick appears to have placed his “ethical” shoe on the other foot, so to speak:

Mosher, The stages in your essay have been analysed in parts by others, some of them many times, but the assemblage is a handy check list.
However, my interest is more in WHY people do these things than in HOW they do these things. I’ve not worked closely with all branches of science, but climate seems to stick out when one seeks examples of convoluted conduct. When I was looking for minerals, it was pointless to follow your diverse steps because you found a deposit or you did not, a sort of binary outcome. It’s rather like pleading guilty to a Court because defences for misconduct are so limited, as opposed to your exposition of “Guilty with a long philosophical explanation.”

Simple: a personal animus– the same reason Steve poked Mann in the eye with this post.

In the case of the “Skeptical Environmentalist” it was that the fact that Lomborg glossed over Gleik’s life work that caused the real offense. Others, similarly offended, piled on. Kåre et al. compiled a list and Lomborg, a potentially useful pragmatist and ally, became a pariah.

The other angle to all of this is harder to communicate: Lomborg’s book was a hot topic on campus and my recollection is that many of my friends (grad students and adjunct professors) were offended or outraged by Lomborg’s cold hearted demotion of moral imperatives to “mere utilities”. It is hard to convey the gravity of the insult but “truth” and “life” are not commodities to be traded and to suggest otherwise is deeply offensive (to get some idea, try and explain or justify the FAA’s price per passenger life to your teenager). Amusingly, Lomborg doubled down and titled his reply to critics (roughly translated) “The Price of Doing Good”.

I think the Economist said it best–and first–about attacks on Lomborg:

“He has not been ignored, which is probably an author’s worst fate, but he may be wishing he had been. The response to the book in many quarters has been apoplectic. Mr Lomborg is being called a liar, a fraud and worse. People are refusing to share a platform with him. He turns up in Oxford to talk about his book, and the author (it is claimed) of a forthcoming study on climate change throws a pie in his face.

“…Mr Lomborg defends these positions on the basis of official data and published science. Environmentalists typically use the same sources, but, as Mr Lomborg lays bare, are much less scrupulous about setting short runs of data in their long-term context, for instance, or about quoting ranges of data, where that is appropriate, rather than whatever extreme of any given range best suits their case. Mr Lomborg diligently piles on the footnotes (2,930 of them) so there is no dispute about where his numbers have come from. His claims, of course, could still be true or false. They are largely true, in our opinion. But what is strangest in all this fuss is the idea that simply by making them he has put himself far beyond the pale of respectable discourse, as so many of his critics appear to believe.

“…Stephen Schneider, one of Scientific American’s anti-Lomborgians, spoke we suspect not just for himself when he told Discover in 1989: “[We] are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place…To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” In other words, save science for other scientists, in peer-reviewed journals and other sanctified places. In public, strike a balance between telling the truth and telling necessary lies.

Science needs no defending from Mr Lomborg. It may very well need defending from champions like Mr Schneider.”

The pie was delivered by Mark Lynas. “I wanted to put a Baked Alaska in his smug face in solidarity with the native Indian and Eskimo people in Alaska who are reporting rising temperatures, shrinking sea ice and worsening effects on animal and bird life.”…sigh

Conard, I’m not sure I buy these reasons in the main. In real life you mix business with pleasure, more than is described above.
So, if someone knocked off some of your work without thanks, you got even my knocking off his mistress/wife/partner/boss/daughter or some or all of the above, with kind thanks to them. This is indeed a simplification, working from theory and observation rather than measurement, but to leave it out completely would be to disregard one of the strong elements of competition in human nature.

I spent a great number of hours vetting Lomborg’s book when it came out and started being attacked. He held up quite well, though there were a few cases where the critics were right. And Lomborg, in contrast with, say, the “Real Climate” crowd has long maintained a corrigenda as well as a list of refutations of the complaints on his web site. I haven’t been to it for a while, however, so I don’t know if he keeps it up anymore.

I was made aware of your discussion of the list of methods used by Lomborg that I have compiled.
Thomaswfuller2 wrote: “but a lot of those points were not used (to my knowledge at least) by Lomborg.”

Just to make things clear: That list of methods is based exclusively on what I have observed Lomborg doing or writing. It is not made up by taking items from other lists or other persons. It is simply my summing up of what I have actually observed done by Lomborg.

Those who doubt it may take a closer look on some of the other pages of the Lomborg-errors web site.

Just to make things clear: That list of methods is based exclusively on what I have observed Lomborg doing or writing. It is not made up by taking items from other lists or other persons. It is simply my summing up of what I have actually observed done by Lomborg

Those who doubt it may take a closer look on some of the other pages of the Lomborg-errors web site.

So we’re supposed to dig through your web page trying to figure out what you meant by say “18) Cite figures selectively. Present those figures that support your point, and omit the others.” If you make a charge, it’s your responsibility to substantiate it not mine to dig through your website and figure out what you meant.

Also, what might be scholarly errors (not noticing that a figure says the opposite of what one thought, etc) you are ascribing to maliciousness. That’s assuming you yourself aren’t in error, which given the squalid nature of your own scholarship, I judge as likely. In addition to perfection that is likely absent, it assumes a mind-reading ability on your part that humans in general lack.

Finally, the fact you put these in a list suggests these are general characteristics of Lomborg’s style of argument. For them to be general characteristics, they have to be things that one can demonstrate as repeated behaviors. If you know enough about Lomborg to find multiple examples of each of these 32 items you need help. Seek it.

It’s slightly amusing that a list of 32 items are really a list of 32 examples of the ad hominem attacks in the form of “appeal to/assumption of motive.”

I meant this fully seriously, the only person this list reflects badly upon is yourself and any mentally-lazy person who would use it without vetting your claims first.

“11) Never give any credit to your opponents. If they, through a massive or concentrated effort, have managed to remedy an environmental problem, then downplay the importance of this and postulate that the improvement would have come by itself anyway.”

This one is completely wrong. I have read articles where he gives great credance to people who have spoken out against him. Unfortunately he has had to explain how they misunderstood what he was saying.

I would be very curious to see where any individual opponents to Lomborg have remedied any environmental problem.

Yes, Jeff. That one in particular stuck out as I was reading the list. It is in particular the total antithesis of what the Skeptical environmentalist is all about. Of course it all depends on who or what is defined as “opponents.” Consider this paragraph from the first page of chapter 1:

“The subtitle of my book is a play on the world’s best-known book on the environment, ‘The State of the World.’ this has been published every year since 1984 by the Worldwatch Institute and its leader Lester Brown, and it has sold more than a million copies. The series attempts to identify the world’s most significant challenges professionally and veraciously. Unfortunately, as we shall see, it is frequently unable to live up to its objectives. In many ways, though, ‘The State of the World’ is one of the best-researched and academically most ambitious environmental policy publications and therefore it is also an essential participant in the discussion of the State of the Word.”

This is not a failure to give credit to an opponent (in this case Lester Brown). While it doesn’t tout the book as being flawless, it does point out its importance and research acumen. Think what might have been if Michael Mann, for instance, had used a similar style in dealing with Steve McIntyre.

“If you make a charge, it’s your responsibility to substantiate it”
Yes, and the purpose of the whole website is to substantiate it.
I start out with the claim that Lomborg repeatedly misleads, and I state that in at least about 100 cases, there is evidence that he misled DELIBERATELY.
And then, the rest of the web site has the purpose to demonstrate just that.
The number of cases is so large that it takes so many pages to demonstrate them all. His deliberate errors are not only in the books, page after page after page, but also in The Copenhagen Consensus Conferences, in films, and in interviews in newspapers and the electronic media. I have examples of all this on the web site. In pointing all this out, I have tried to be as neutral and objective as possible. I just state the case, and try, as well as I have been able to, to avoid any subjective negative statements about Lomborg. In some cases I try to explain and interpret, but in most cases I try to let his deeds speak for themselves.
I am very used to that people do not want to see the errors and therefore claim that they are not there. That does not make them disappear. I am also very used to that people claim that they are so clever that they can see at once what all this is about, so they feel they do not need to inspect the tedious details. And I do not, of course, expect anybody on this forum to admit that Lomborg did anything wrong. Nor do I expect you to admit that any environmentalists have done anything good.
A member of the Danish parliament once made a statement which has been cited many times since then. He said: “If these are the facts, then I deny the facts.” It seems there are many people like him.
I do not expect that any of you will admit that any criticism I have raised on the Lomborg-errors web site has any merit.
From your remarks, you all appear as `angry young men`(although some of you may be not so young), who simply want to find somebody to hate. It is nearly like `hate without a cause´. And now you have been unified in finding a person whom you can all hate, namely Michael Mann. You have created a small community on the internet where you all try to outdo each other in how much negativity you can put into a sentence, and how harsh and uncompromizing you can be. I suspect that you feel much joy in doing this. Nothing I can say will change that.
My appearance here on this site is only meant as a short visit. I do not expect that any further discussion would be constructive in any way. I just wanted to state clearly how the Lomborg-errors web site is conceived, and that I actually mean what I write.

Tsk, Tsk, what to do about these pelt and run types? I wanted to ask him if he if he condemned or approved Mark Lynas for the Baked Alaska, but I didn’t have the chance. He laid down a fusilade of spitballs and so made his escape.

I’ve been to the website. It is turgid and vague. It includes detail from, and support of, Friel’s “The Lomborg Deception”, which is the most turgid work I have ever read (and paid for!)

This is a really good, really typical example, which relates to the first point you can pin down – many pages in – in Friel’s opus. (Up to that point finding a clear statement in the text is what is called, in my part of the world, trying to catch a fart with a butterfly net.) Lomborg wrote that the FAR (WG1) projected a 12 inch rise in sea level by 2100, 9 inches of which are attributed to thermal expansion. (His point is that this is no big deal given a century to prepare.) Lomborg cites figs. 10.6.1, 10.6.3 and 10.6.4 from the WG1 material. Friel states again and again that these figures “do not exist”. This is clearly his strongest point, since he revisits it in his counterblast to Lomborg at the website in question.

Yet Friel points out that the information given by Lomborg is in SECTIONS 10.6.1, 10.6.3 and 10.6.4. That minor slip in an endnote is Friel’s best and most celebrated evidence for Lomborg’s “deception”. The 12 inches and the 9 inches are kosher – though Friel (presumably unfamiliar with the concept of sig figs) thinks Lomborg’s numbers are suspiciously precise… Lomborg’s unforgivable sin is agreeing with WG1 (but not with the Summary for Policy Makers, of course).

Don’t go there. Don’t buy Friel. Reading his stuff reminded me somewhat of the Shawshank Redemption – you know, that bit. And Son-of-Friel, like most sequels, is even worse.

“I have tried to be as neutral and objective as possible. I just state the case, and try, as well as I have been able to, to avoid any subjective negative statements about Lomborg. ”

seriously? oh well. Its easy to fool yourself. you are forgiven.

Your Predictions:

1″ And I do not, of course, expect anybody on this forum to admit that Lomborg did anything wrong. ”

Of course Lomborg has done some things that were wrong. Perhaps
on purpose. Although, I would not think that speculating on motives adds anything of substance to the discussion.

Strike One.

2. “Nor do I expect you to admit that any environmentalists have done anything good.”

of course as an enviromentalist I not only admit we have done good, I am proud of the good we have done.

Strike 2

3. “I do not expect that any of you will admit that any criticism I have raised on the Lomborg-errors web site has any merit.”

Of course your criticism has merit. That is why I suggest a comparison.

Strike 3

4.”From your remarks, you all appear as `angry young men`(although some of you may be not so young), who simply want to find somebody to hate. It is nearly like `hate without a cause´. And now you have been unified in finding a person whom you can all hate, namely Michael Mann. You have created a small community on the internet where you all try to outdo each other in how much negativity you can put into a sentence, and how harsh and uncompromizing you can be.

Well, you struck out, but let’s be clear. The point of my comparsion has been utterly lost on you.
I accept without question or doubt your identification of “methods” that lomborg uses. I Accept without doubt that you got every detail correct. now watch.. I suggest that people look at Mann methods to see how many match the methods you have detailed for Lomborg.

You see, you are so used to people attacking you, you are so used to seeing an enemy that “hates”, that you missed the point of my suggestion. I am suggesting that people use your classification of methods on Mann. That’s not hate brother, thats loving your exhaustive approach. Now, see how you fooled yourself.
we call that ‘beclowning’ yourself.

before you leave grab a big red ball for your nose, an orange haired wig from the corner, and i’ll fit you for big floppy shoes

…the insult should be so subtle that the general public will not detect it.

My selection there illustrates how Mr Fog’s list of identified “methods” appears to me. It is all an appeal to subjectivity. A vague unspoken orthodoxy that I should just know Lomborg is wrong. I followed through to the site and got caught up in narratives that really depend on you basically agreeing to start with the worst interpretations of why things are done by Lomborg. I think Mr Fog thinks Lomborg really is a “magician” who can take over people’s minds.

It’s all tell not show.

There seems to be an element of paranoia and an evident mistrust of people’s intelligence I don’t like in the list of methods. If you want to provoke a discussion that implies those characteristic’s exist in, and have been applied by, some critics of Mann then I could agree. But I wouldn’t personally be interested in anyone using those classifications of methods as a tool to impress upon me anything about anyone.

Kaare, I remember reading “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and enjoying it so I went to look at at your site for some errors. The first example (lomborg-errors.dk/example1.htm) is about rice yields.

“[Your] Summary. Lomborg disputes the existence of a physiologically and biologically determined upper limit to rice yields. As evidence for this he presents a graph purporting to show steady and continuing increases. Had he then followed this through with a careful analysis of the data it would have shown rice yields leveling off at about 6.7 tonnes/ha. Instead of doing this he attempts to muddy the waters by citing an economics working paper (unavailable to anyone else but Lomborg), whose claims – that rice yields will increase by up to 50% in the longer term – he fails to substantiate.”

First, he disputes the yield limit postulated by Lester Brown, that the limit was reached 1983(!) in Japan.
Secondly, he might be citing some unavailable paper (in his book) but reality supports him, according to wikipedia (Rice) the current average productivity in Australia is 10.8 tonnes/ha and the world record is 22.4 tonnes/ha so there is (real world) support for his statement that data “clearly shows a steady increase in yields”

Is this “evidence that [you] misled DELIBERATELY”? See how easy it is…

If I remember correctly, the premise of his book is that if you look at the real data, it does not support the alarmists (following “doomslayer” Julian Simon and our host).

Can’t remember where, but this claim of Lomborg being wrong, when in fact the claim was false not LomBorg’s statement, is old. I think it was a post Lomborg himself did IIRC. Fog’s work, as this indicates, may be somewhat out of date besides poorly documented. Can’t remember if such was one of the 32 ways, it appears to be a combo of 9, 10,and 13, so perhaps we have 33 ways, and can help update Fog’s work.

I start out with the claim that Lomborg repeatedly misleads, and I state that in at least about 100 cases, there is evidence that he misled DELIBERATELY.

Like Steven Mosher, I don’t think the mind-reading attempts reinforce the case you’re trying to make. If it’s that rock solid, present the facts, let other people come to their own conclusions.

And I do not, of course, expect anybody on this forum to admit that Lomborg did anything wrong

I’ve no idea why you’d expect that, but I’m not surprised you would, given as you seen to think you can read other people’s motives. You’d be wrong on this, of course if we saw nonsense from Lomborg, we’d call him out on it.

And now you have been unified in finding a person whom you can all hate, namely Michael Mann

Not hate, try wry amusement. You should end these futile attempts to guess what makes other people tick, since you’re just very good at it.

My appearance here on this site is only meant as a short visit. I do not expect that any further discussion would be constructive in any way

Still, I do not accept people who are so self-centered that they right away reject assertions that conflict with their general conviction. I have dealt with too many persons of the `angry young man´ type (even if they are not young) who are very quick to trash anything that bothers them, even though they know very little of the subject. I have used months and months carefully scrutinizing Lomborg´s products, and then somebody looks at this for a few seconds and says: “This is just another baked Alaska”. Excuse me, but I resent that kind of ignorance. Just as I resent those several others who try to find some similar excuse for not dealing with the evidence.

As to Steven Mosher´s comments, I have of course understood from the start what was the purpose of citing the method list. And I think comments on clowns do not further a constructive debate.

On the other hand, I do respect people who disagree with me, but who take the care to inspect the evidence. Therefore, I respect Dr. Dag, who discusses the case on rice yields. As to this, I will say first that I did not include this as one of the c. 100 cases of DELIBERATE misleading, only as a case of misleading (Lomborg postulates that yields of rice increase steadily, and postulates that Lester Brown misleads deliberately when he claims that the yields are levelling off. I made calculations of the trends and concluded that the yields are indeed levelling off, so Brown was to some degree right on this and Lomborg was wrong here).

Referring to Dr. Dags figures on rice yields in Australia, I checked the wikipedia article and made some further search. It is not true that the average productivity in Australia is 10.8 tonnes/ha, but (over 5 years) it is 9 tonnes/ha, which is still high (the highest in the world, excluding data from single plots and single years).
On this basis I have now modified that particular page on Lomborg-Errors. So I thank for constructive criticism, which leads to more correct presentations.

By the way, it is interesting to see how much Lomborg criticizes the way that Lester Brown picks certain years out of long term graphs. Brown picks a year with maximal rice yield and claims that since then, there has been no further increase. There is a point that climate skeptics do exactly the same. They pick a record year (e.g. 1998) and claim that since then, there has been no further increase in average global temperature, so global warming has come to a halt. Lomborg is right in criticizing Brown here, but it would have been nice to see him criticizing climate skeptics for doing exactly the same.

As to item 11 in the list, I must admit that I overlooked that Lomborg has 5 lines in the start of his chapter 1 of TSE, in which he refers to Lester Brown in positive terms. But compare that with the text in the chapter on food supplies and rice yields, where he uses more than 10 pages to criticize Lester Brown with hardly a single positive comment. So what impression does the reader get of Lester Brown overall? On page 108 we read: “We have here studied the best arguments and data that Lester Brown has been able to put forth . . However, they do not seem to carry much weight.” So I think I am right to say that Brown gets no merit when even his `best arguments´ do not `carry much weight´.

Lomborg´s `publication´ (only electronic) with a Danish title that translates into `The cost of goodness´ was written in 1999, as a response to the criticism raised against him in Denmark by then. He has not produced a corresponding response when the same group of Danes criticized The Skeptical Environmentalist after its appearance in 2001. And he has not responded to any criticism on the Lomborg-errors web page. The web page lists more than 500 errors and flaws in his books, and still he has not found the opportunity to comment on this. Compare this with the great stir when about 5 errors/flaws were pointed out in the latest IPCC report – although the errors/flaws there were no greater than those committed by Lomborg (e.g. lack of a proper reference to an otherwise correct statement). Pachauri did have the integrity to admit those errors that were pointed out. Lomborg does not.

If you consult http://www.Lomborg-errors.dk/Lomborgsresponsetocriticism, then you will find under the heading `Lomborg´s response to Lomborg-errors´ references to two papers in `The journal of information Ethics´. One is written by my opponents who defend Lomborg, the other by me. If you intend to conclude anything about what is all this fuzz about, I would recommend that you consult both these papers.

Concerning Mark Lynas, I do not respect him and what he has done. I suspect he might possibly be a person whose main purpose is to attract attention and be where things are happening. I think I remember that he was the person who falsely told Al Gore that the citizens of Tuvalu all had been evacuated to New Zealand; unfortunately, Al Gore believed him on his word, which subsequently became one of the big issues in the criticism of Al Gore´s film. Both this and the pie story has harmed the environmentalist side. Now, I guess, Mark Lynas has more or less shifted to the other side. So beware of him – he might do the same kind of damage to you.

“…that kind of ignorance” Yes, I confess, I said baked Alaska, but metaphorically- hardly a matter of ignorance. I could have said “hatchet job”, and neither would that have been ignorance. I also said that it reflects on you, and I will stand on that statement. What you fail to realize is that your thirty-two item indictment turns repellent and then amusing and then tedious. You have way overdone it. You could have dispatched Lomborg more effectively with a few well-placed shots, but no, you must use a hatchet, too. You have boosted Lomborg by gaining him sympathetic attention. He should thank you, but I don’t suppose he will. Now you can add ingratitude to the list as # 33.

Dr. Kåre Fog is, in the course of those comments, also critical of Steve McIntyre (paragraph breaks added) :

[ Referring to Climategate: ] You may criticise one particular thing, namely the unwillingness of Phil Jones to provide all the raw data that Steven McIntyre demanded to get. However, I think Jones is well excused. McIntyre came up with a never ending stream of requests, requiring more and more extensive sets of raw data, and every time he received some, he used it to harass Phil Jones. This was a long-time concentrated effort to harass Phil Jones to the point where he would finally break down psychologically. It was psychological warfare. To fulfil the requests, Jones would have to use a lot of time, which he could then not use to do research.

What is more, the heavily publicized conclusions drawn by McIntyre were flawed. The public got the impression that if more correct analyses had been performed on the data, then there would no longer have been a `hockey stick´. That is not correct. There were some problems with the analysis of some subsets of data, but contrary to what has repeatedly been stated by McIntyre, a proper re-analysis did hardly change the overall graphs. McIntyre has also postulated that the whole analysis depended on the tree rings of very few individual trees, but this is wrong.

In any case, hardly any person in the world would have been able to remain sane if exposed to the type of systematic harassment exerted by McIntyre. What parent would remain sane if a person every day superwised all care and upbringing of his/her child and criticised every small detail day in and day out? Nobody can stay psychologically healthy in that situation. Jones was close to committing suicide, and I think that McIntyre and those behind him would have been very glad if he had actually done that.

Dr. Fog, while muddled, these are strong accusatory statements, presented with no evidence to support them. Would you therefore kindly provide the evidence which led you to conclude :

– That Steve McIntyre’s (and following PJ’s rejection, others’) requests for code and data were an attempt to harass and induce in Phil Jones a psychological breakdown, rather than genuine requests based on scientific curiosity and an expectation that such important work should be open to public scrutiny.

– That a proper re-analysis of the Mann’s hockey-stick (MBH98/99) graph still produce the almost the same graph with “hardly [a] change” ? Please link or reference to this graph (including the confidence intervals, without which one cannot draw conclusions regarding the likelihood of 20th C. temperatures exceeding those of the past centuries).

– That “[h]ardly any person in the world would have been able to remain sane if exposed to the type of systematic harassment exerted by McIntyre”

– That Steve McIntyre would have been “very glad” had Phil Jones committed suicide.

The findings of the “Committee on Scientific Dishonest” against Lomborg (which were based in part on your work) were overturned by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, which described the findings as “completely void of argumentation”, and the Committee’s treatment of the case to be ‘unsatisfactory’, ‘deserving criticism’, ‘emotional’ and ‘reprehensible’. Your statements against Steve McIntyre appear to me, based on my understanding of the facts, to be similarly flawed. Please present the evidence supporting your statements, or retract your accusations.

Stephen Mosher’s “List of methods that Lomborg may have applied” very much reminds me of Stephen Potter’s 1952 book, One-upmanship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-upmanship). Great fun. He also wrote Gamesmanship and Lifemanship. They make superb vade mecums for the dedicated rotter. Every cad should have a set.

I wonder if they’ll make them available on Kindle for the iPhone? They ought to.

The error is obvious enough even Mann admits it (see his response to comment 15). Ultimately though, I imagine that’ll be a non-issue. The real issue is highlighted in Mann’s response to Tim Osborn at comment 19:

I would take issue with your statement that the evidence is firmly against missing rings. I will present some new work next week at AGU (my live-streamed talk) that provides evidence firmly in favor of there being missing rings. I will be very interested in what the dendro community has to say in response to that evidence.

Missing rings in individual trees is hardly surprising, but if Mann is right about there being stand-wide missing rings (which is what Osborn referred to), that would be a big deal. Of course, this is Mann saying new work will prove something, and anyone with any sense would be suspicious. It’s possible he’s right, but he’s going to have to do a lot to convince many people of it.

One of the 23 dendros who wrote the response to Mann prior to AGU, Paul J. Krusic (at Lamont/Columbia U.) posted this comment at RC today (though it does not seem to respond specifically to Mann at AGU, except to assert that Mann has not provided empirical evidence for his case). Krusic expresses sympathy for Mann getting past criticisms from such evil deniers outside the field but then notes that Mann has really stepped in it this time:

…we just want to see good science published. One cannot come out and say computer models conclude all high latitude and high elevation tree-ring chronologies have chronic dating errors, without evidence, and think there will not be repercussions.

So I return to the question of our article’s significance. Each of us, the 23 authors of the comment, have different opinions on what that significance is and I speak only for myself. The principles of ecological amplitude and limiting factors, two important components of Evolutionary Theory tell me there must be trees somewhere, at high latitude or high elevation, that grew a ring in those years with volcanic eruptions. The principle of cross-dating, from which Dendrochronology is derived, provides a means by which even a partial ring, in one sample, is enough to correct an entire chronology. I cannot dismiss these principles, which have withstood over a century of study and description, without empirical evidence….

Wellll… the AGU has now honored Mann “For exceptional scientific contributions to illuminate the causes of climate change and for major breakthrough and paradigm shift.” Can anyone say what the ‘breakthrough’ is or what valuable ‘paradigm’ he has established?? Seems that he has muddied the waters with misleading and unsubstantiated assertions guided by political not scientific priorities….

I know this topic is older, but I recently read about an older story that was eerily similar. About fifteen years ago a somewhat popular anti-skeptic author (and common sight at DeSmogBlog), Ross Gelbspan, falsely claimed to have won a Pulitzer. When the truth was pointed out, he gave a number of lame reasons saying they meant it counted as winning the Pulitzer.

Mann’s lawyers have filed a counter-motion to the SLAPP motion, and they provide a novel excuse for Olympic Mann on the “Nobel Prize” claim — some other climate scientists did the same thing with the IPCC certificate so it must be ok.

Mann’s lawyers still flogging false claims that he has been perfectly vindicated:

“…For example, in 2003, mining consultant Stephen McIntyre and University of Guelph Economics Professor Ross McKitrick published a paper in Energy and Environment purporting to demonstrate that the Hockey Stick Graph was an artifact of bad data. A later article by the same authors in the journal Geophysical Research Letters suggested that the “hockey stick” shape was an artifact of a faulty statistical approach. Subsequently, every peer-reviewed study that has examined McIntyre and McKitrick’s claims has found them to be inaccurate. Nonetheless, Defendants continue to point to McIntyre and McKitrick’s work as evidence of “data errors” and faulty statistics underlying Dr. Mann’s work. See CEI Anti-SLAPP Mem. at 9. But significantly, at no point have either McIntyre and McKitrick ever accused Dr. Mann of misconduct or fraud….”

One of my “favorite” (sic) parts of the Yale article is when the writer simply channels the Team fairy tales about “trick” and “hide the decline”

“As for “hide the decline,” Jones wasn’t referring to declines in temperature; he was referring to a drop seen in certain types of tree-ring data after 1960. And he wasn’t referring to Mann’s work—but to that of another scientist, Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia. Pre-1960, Briffa’s tree-ring density records track the temperature records. Post-1960, there is a decline in the response of certain trees to temperature (possibly due to pollution): the actual recorded temperatures are consistently higher than what the tree-ring data would predict. The temperature records are the more important and reliable data, so Briffa had to discard the tree-ring “decline” records. But the decline wasn’t hidden. It was clearly discussed and labeled in Briffa’s paper. And Mann’s paper didn’t rely on any of those data.”